1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

USA Politics

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Genghis Khan, Dec 22, 2007.

  1. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

    The USA frequently overthrows strongmen dictators just like Kim that they have decided they don't like, and Kim is indeed just that - but he believes nukes are a path to safety for his regime. Guy doesn't actually want to blow up the White House, or more accurately, he understands that even with nuclear weapons, he will lose any war he starts with the USA. He's well aware what happened to the last country that sucker-punched the USA militarily, and he knows that if he nuked, say, Honolulu, it would do nothing but ensure every single American would be ready to pay the incredible cost to depose his government and see him killed. In other words, if he swings first, he loses, and he loses 100 times out of 100.

    He is also aware that if he has a nuclear weapon and can reasonably point it at Honolulu, that the United States will not risk attacking him, because the USA has no interest in being nuked over North Korea. It's the same principle that exists every day in our world, with the Russians still possessing full nuclear capacity. He just wants the same belt of safety, and the rest of it is a pissing contest designed to intimidate the average westerner and to show his people he's big and tough.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't want the North Koreans to have nukes, but it seems inevitable that they will eventually create a small nuclear arsenal.

    As for the other, Travis - I am unashamedly a left-wing progressive liberal (small L). But it's not just the mainstream media that dislikes Trump - the National Review, one of the oldest right-wing publications in the US, is also very much against Trump. Lots of senators, including McCain, a party presidential nominee, are also against Trump. It's pretty easy to see that he's not just getting a "bad rap". We do have a few American conservatives (though I think they're pretty moderate-liberal on social issues), but I'm pretty sure it's just not fun anymore to talk about it. It's a goddamn trainwreck in the White House, and it's not just spin. Sure, there's some spin, but a critical mind can read through it.

    Anyone who says Trump is anything other than the worst president of the post-Nixon era is lying. Straight. Up. Lying. His poll numbers have entered late-term George W. Bush levels. His Obamacare repeal plan failed. He has zero major legislative achievements. He's isolating the USA from allies near and far, including my own country. And that's before you consider the incredible level of personal turmoil that surrounds the President...it ain't getting any better.

    I've always said, Travis, you can ask any question and it will be answered. Usually, it is answered respectfully - sometimes, people lose their shit, but that will happen - but I'll never, ever tell you anything other than the simple, unvarnished truth from my point of view. That truth might be complex, but I will make it as clear as I can. And here's the clearest thing I can say:

    Trump is a disaster, and he needs exactly zero spin from any media to make it seem that way. The facts of the matter are more than enough to condemn him in this aspect. Maybe it'll change, and if he does a good thing I'll happily say so. But there hasn't been any good so far.
  2. Forostar

    Forostar Conjure the Death Star again

    I am not convinced. At least I find him very dangerous to his own people. Also in a mad way. He kills them in concentration camps, he kills family, even outside NK. Who says such a man who can feel threatened or enraged so easily (paranoia) will never push the red button?

    Something else, I already knew that Trump is mad before he was elected, thus I have a better idea of judging mad people than millions of ignorant people who voted for him either did not mind he became President. Yey. What a remarkable, what a difficult achievement that was. "Everything better than Clinton", remember? Come again? Man, were they wrong. From the beginning. Some people were so stuck in relatively unimportant matters (e.g. e-mail scandal, or Dem party politics; yes it was foul that Sanders had not a better chance, but what is more foul: that or Trump, real rocket science isn't it?), that they did not have a clue what the alternative was. That was plain DUMB. Now I hope the Americans have paid attention to what happened and maybe next time they will also judge important matters in the next elections. People their character, people their (racist) intentions, people their programs. But you need to be able to judge well. Judge what someone does, judge what someone says. Basically: stop being so ignorant.
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2017
  3. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon The dreamers may die, but the dreams live on.

    Can I see a link DIRECTLY from The National Review where it says they're against Trump?

    Also, are there any super die hard right wing republicans who would pretty much be the opposite of left wingers like LC here on this site who don't like him?

    I guess until Trump does something that affects me and my family in a VERY DIRECT way, I'm not going to worry too much about it. I'm still curious about my inquiries though.
  4. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon The dreamers may die, but the dreams live on.

    From: https://www.defconwarningsystem.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=10649&p=82465#p82464
    And from the same thread:
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2017
  5. CriedWhenBrucieLeft

    CriedWhenBrucieLeft Ancient Mariner

    How can you objectively think Trump is anything other than unsuited to being president?
  6. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

  7. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

    I tend to agree with Perun on this. Just because he treats his people horribly doesn't mean he's crazy enough to launch a nuke. He has to know it's the one action that would cause both China to abandon him and the USA to destroy him. He wants the freedom to continue treating his people the way he does.

    I guess, in short, what I'm saying is that cruelty to his own people isn't a sign of madness, but a sign of cold calculation. This kid will cut down anyone who threatens him internally. He's more of a sociopath than anything else, but he certainly has some level of self-preservation, or he wouldn't be so ruthless.
  8. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon The dreamers may die, but the dreams live on.

    Well, that was right around the time he became president. What have they been saying about him in the last 6 months? Still, it is some very strong stuff against him coming from right wingers. And again, are there any die hard conservatives on here who are also against trump? I'm just wondering.

    And as bad as Kim treats his people, I do hope you're right about him not being crazy enough to launch a nuke. Only time will tell on that one unless we end up doing a preemptive strike.
  9. Travis The Dragon

    Travis The Dragon The dreamers may die, but the dreams live on.

  10. Zare

    Zare Dream of broken citadels

    Treating people badly is not a crime, nor is possessing nuclear weapons. Also, not being UN member state is not a crime, either, and everything you do you do because of the general consensus that countries should cooperate with each other. Let me explain this;


    So North Korea withdrew. There is no legal standing on which you can disable NK from producing and testing nuke ICBMs. You can choose not to cooperate with that country, whole world can do so, but that's it. You just can't attack them.

    That's theory. In practice we all know that madman is running the show, that they're threatening with direct strikes. This allows for a justified preemptive strikes. However the pretense that something should be done about NK because they're human right abusers and nuclear producers is completely, utterly wrong. "Human rights" aren't quantifiable and has different meaning from culture to culture. Ask a Saudi (a "normal" person, not a Wahabbi idiot) on the streets of Riyad what human rights mean for him and you'll get a different answer than anywhere in Europe.

    Therefore, you make the madman stop threatening and launching test articles. How? Easy. First make an international coallition made of SK, Jap, China, Rus and US. Then demand. If he doesn't bow down, carpet bomb the artillery strip at their side of DMZ and pinpoint strike known chemical weapons facilities. This will disable NK from retaliating with massive amounts of conventional and chemical ordinance against Seoul. Would Kim retaliate with nukes? 99% no.
  11. bearfan

    bearfan Ancient Mariner

    There are human rights and there are human rights

    A woman cannot drive a car versus locking people up in harsh conditions/flat out killing them are not really equal .. though I do not think that in and of itself would be any kind of reason to strike ... there are plenty of other places that do that as well

    One thing that is for certain is the never ending cycle of North Korea saber rattling/giving N. Korea aid to stop saber rattling ... repeat ad nauseam did not work across all moronic Kim regimes.
  12. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

    Like in Saudi Arabia?
    Ohhh you meant Saudi Arabia!
  13. Zare

    Zare Dream of broken citadels

    Where's the standard, the law, the guidebook? Besides you'd cover a lot of UN member states with that sentence, USA included. For the sake of the argument, let's say we had this discussion 50 years ago. There would be no significant country in the world that wasn't guilty of grave human rights abuses.

    I agree 'we' should react when someone is being abused somewhere. What constitutes as abuse, who exactly are 'we' and what exactly do we do isn't put down on paper and ratified. That's the problem.

    Regarding your assessment of the Kim-give-us-food roundabout, you're spot on.
  14. bearfan

    bearfan Ancient Mariner

    There is no standard .. there probably should be at least some really basic standard .. but then you get back to the problem of if country A violates the standard, how do you prove it and what do you do about it.

    Sanctions are probably the best tool for that ... not invasion.

    North Korea is a bit of a different animal given that they have nukes and are a threat outside of North Korea ... that should be the basis for any actions ... if it helps with the human rights issue, which I think by any standard, they are clearly violating .. that is a bonus
  15. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

    And the standard of what do you do if a world power violates the standard...not like anyone is going to hold the UK accountable, let alone Russia or the US...
  16. bearfan

    bearfan Ancient Mariner

    Realistically you do nothing ... beyond maybe economic sanctions, which has been the case with Russia
  17. Zare

    Zare Dream of broken citadels

    There is International Criminal Court but few of most powerful countries aren't signatories. It's like that anti-landmine treaty, where largest standing armies didn't sign so it's kinda pointless. There is a larger China<->US play in the theater, if they didn't have "conflict of interest" situation would be solvable. Chinese don't want US influence on the whole Korean peninsula, but they don't want a warmonger either...China is growing in peace. Hermit Kingdom was passable for both, the old Kim did shout a bit, then he'd get his rice and Hennessy and STFU. This one is out of any Chinese control. As you might remember, Chinese did have a favourable candidate in the form of Jong-Il's brother or cousin, he got Stalin'd in the process, dead, and erased from the lore too.

    On the other hand, nobody is mentioning Japan. Their "self defense forces" are one of the most capable army this world has ever seen, complete with aircraft carriers and remote supply bases on several continents. Basically with the amen of China, South Korea and Japan could handle this all by themselves. It is unrealistic due to everything between China and Japan, but it would be the most elegant option politically. You aren't dragging US or Russia in, so no fueling of 70 year old propaganda.
  18. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

    And in the end, that's the problem. If you can't force the big people to obey these rules, how are you ever going to force smaller nations with any convincing attitude?

    Any part of Korea vs Japan is very likely to dig up older propaganda...
  19. bearfan

    bearfan Ancient Mariner

    In the latest round of "blame everyone for my loss but me"

    (CNN)Hillary Clinton casts Bernie Sanders as an unrealistic over-promiser in her new book, according to excerpts posted by a group of Clinton supporters.

    She said that his attacks against her during the primary caused "lasting damage" and paved the way for "(Donald) Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."
    Clinton, in a book that will be released September 12 entitled "What Happened," said Sanders "had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character" because the two Democrats "agreed on so much."

    "Some of his supporters, the so-called Bernie Bros, took to harassing my supporters online. It got ugly and more than a little sexist," she wrote.

    "When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn't come up with anything," Clinton wrote. "Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump's 'Crooked Hillary' campaign."

    The excerpts were first posted by a pro-Clinton Twitter account and by a user on a Clinton "super volunteer" Facebook page.

    "She says a lot in this book, and some of it is going to surprise people. People should buy it, read it, and consider what she constructively lays out. It's a great read," a Clinton aide said, asking not be named because they were not authorized to discuss the book.

    In her forthcoming book, Clinton noted that the Vermont independent "isn't a Democrat."

    "That's not a smear, that's what he says," she wrote. "He didn't get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party."
    After outlining how she disagrees with Sanders' view of the Democratic Party, Clinton concludes, "I am proud to be a Democrat and I wish Bernie were, too."

    Clinton wrote that President Barack Obama counseled her to "grit my teeth and lay off Bernie as much as I could," according to the excerpts. That strategy, Clinton wrote, made her feel she was "in a straitjacket."

    She noted that Jake Sullivan, her top policy aide, told her that Sanders' campaign strategy reminded him of a scene from the movie "There's Something About Mary," where a hitchhiker says he has a plan to roll out seven-minute abs to top the famous eight-minute abs.

    "Why, why not six-minutes abs?" Ben Stiller's character asks.

    Clinton wrote: "That's what it was like in policy debates with Bernie. We would promise a bold infrastructure investment plan or an ambitious new apprenticeship program for young people, and then Bernie would announce basically the same thing, but bigger. On issue after issue, it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!"
  20. LooseCannon

    LooseCannon Yorktown-class aircraft carrier Staff Member

    I have absolutely ordered the book, I will enjoy it just for seeing how she lashes out. Should be an interesting read, and possibly quite a fun display of hubris.

Share This Page